NOVEL IDEA

Hokitika Guardian, 11 August 1931, Page 8

NOVEL IDEA

SOUND FILM IN COURT. NOISES OF DAIRY. SYDNEY, July 50. It has remained for Australia to introduce a sound film into a Court of Law as a "witness.” This will be done w hen a resident of Caulfield, next month, secures the hearing of his action lor an injunction against a next door neighbour wlio owns and operates a dairy. The plain tiff is claiming iJlooU damages and an ■injunction against the continuation of "the noises which he complains of—the banking of cans, talking, whistling, singing, and the noisy running of the engines, which interferes with his sleep. The case has already been mentioned before the Court, and a temporary injunction granted against singing and whistling; but the main argument centred around the admissibility of a sound film as evidence. The Chief Justice at once said that he saw no reason against it, providing certain precautions were taken. It would seem, therefore, that science, always at war with conservatism has won the first round of the battle for the.’introduction of a mechanical witness into a legal action. Many affidavits have been filed in .he action by the parties in the case, but the allegations on the one side have been met with straight-out denials on the other. The plaintiff thereupon hit on the idea of obtaining independent testimony in the form of a sound production of the noises, which, he says, disturb his sleep. Australian Sound Films were thereupon commissioned to “photograph” the noises. The microphone was placed a few inches from the windowsill of the room in which the plaintiff sleeps, and for, the purposes of comparison included a reproduction of the ordinary speaking voice. The Chief Justice smiled when counsel sa : d that it was proposed to place the sound film “in the box,” and he said it was a “nice” question of law wli ther it should be allowed. However, he saw no reason to object ; but he was interested 'to know just, how the evidence would be given. He, was told that 'the”' 1 , would be no difficulty in showing tne film in the Court itself, but then the question arose ’as to whether a screening in Court would not tend to magnify the sound. He saw no reason why the noises should not be reproduced in the open air, and it then might be a true reproduction of the volume of sound and the character of the actual noise. This particular point has been held over pending the hearing of the case next month.